Migration Reforms of Yesterday and Today
While immigration reforms recently being debated in the United States Congress are not yet defined, they are going down the same path as the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act. In effect, the issues and problems are more of the same; what has changed is the scale and context of the phenomenon.
In 1986, the undocumented migrant population was estimated at roughly 4 million. Of those, about 80 percent, 3.2 million, were legalized. In 2013, the undocumented population was estimated to be about 11.5 million, roughly three times more. The question that we ask ourselves is exactly how many could be regulated this time around.
However, the dimension of the phenomenon will not change the reform’s terms, which need to address the issues of regulation and legalization, employer sanctions, a program or system of temporary workers, border security, verification of legal status, family reunification, etc.
The economic, political, social and migratory situations of 2013 are completely distinct from those of 1986. In the first place, the Immigration Reform and Control Act reform came about at a time of economic growth, when there was an expected, increased demand for unskilled labor, hence a rather large amnesty granted toward illegal immigrants. In 2013, the effects of the financial and economic crisis and the high levels of unemployment still have not been resolved. This context generates adverse conditions that exacerbate the tendency toward extreme requirements in the regulation program.
The political context of today is different from that of 1986. The anti-immigration politics of that time lasted 20 years and have only just begun to diminish after the political failure of the 2012 elections and the necessary reorganization of the Republican Party with respect to its politics with the Hispanic minority. In 1986, the animosity against undocumented immigrants was less explicit.
The context of national and border security is also radically different in 2013. Reagan said in 1986 that the United States “had lost control of its borders.” In reality, this phrase only began to mean something after Sept. 11, 2001. The politics of national security began with the Patriot Act, the creation of Homeland Security, and immigration and customs enforcement. These are a complete change from what had previously been a relatively open and porous border. Today everything is monitored and militarized.
The social conditions also vary. In 1986 there wasn’t a social movement of relevant size to reclaim the regularization. Twenty years later in 2006, more than 3 million people went to the streets to show their interest and demand a reasonable path to become U.S. citizens.
Among the slogans that they shouted in the streets were “yes we can” and “we are here, and here we will stay.” This marked the first time that many took to the streets to protest the anti-immigrant policy that Congress had proposed in reform HR 4437. In addition to large marches, there were many timely protests that were very successful.
Moreover, the migration pattern has changed radically in comparison to 1986, when migrants could relatively easily — and securely — come and go as they pleased. Today, migrants must really make an effort. The increased cost and risk to cross the border prevent them from circling between the two countries as they had done in the previous century. The elongation of the migrant’s stay solidified the integration of the migrant in U.S. media, although the conditions of insecurity and vulnerability continued due to their illegal status.
Working conditions have radically transformed in the past 25 years. This has paralleled the precarious position of the migrant worker, who most often is a day laborer looking for temporary work, while another sector has ventured into higher paying labor markets such as construction, services, small business and small trade.
Finally, in this new context of increased polarization, integration and maturity of the Mexican migrant community, a migratory reform that opens the path to regularization and citizenship of several million people will be an incredible motor to empower them and increase their potential as a decisive force in American society of the 21st century.
The Mexican reality has changed, particularly in the demographic composition. In the '80s the migratory process still impacted numerous families who encouraged the emigration of some of its members. Today families in general are smaller, and there is less pressure to export members.
When the growth of the population is controlled and is given a chance to expand economically, conditions will be generated that will reduce the migrant flow. In addition to economic growth, it will generate employment, increase salaries and reduce inequality. This path of development will make emigration no longer necessary.
Then the migratory reforms of other countries will have an impact on us, and we will have to think about a better way to handle the migrant flows that arrive in our own country of Mexico.
In 1986, the undocumented migrant population was estimated at roughly 4 million. Of those, about 80 percent, 3.2 million, were legalized. In 2013, the undocumented population was estimated to be about 11.5 million, roughly three times more. The question that we ask ourselves is exactly how many could be regulated this time around.
However, the dimension of the phenomenon will not change the reform’s terms, which need to address the issues of regulation and legalization, employer sanctions, a program or system of temporary workers, border security, verification of legal status, family reunification, etc.
The economic, political, social and migratory situations of 2013 are completely distinct from those of 1986. In the first place, the Immigration Reform and Control Act reform came about at a time of economic growth, when there was an expected, increased demand for unskilled labor, hence a rather large amnesty granted toward illegal immigrants. In 2013, the effects of the financial and economic crisis and the high levels of unemployment still have not been resolved. This context generates adverse conditions that exacerbate the tendency toward extreme requirements in the regulation program.
The political context of today is different from that of 1986. The anti-immigration politics of that time lasted 20 years and have only just begun to diminish after the political failure of the 2012 elections and the necessary reorganization of the Republican Party with respect to its politics with the Hispanic minority. In 1986, the animosity against undocumented immigrants was less explicit.
The context of national and border security is also radically different in 2013. Reagan said in 1986 that the United States “had lost control of its borders.” In reality, this phrase only began to mean something after Sept. 11, 2001. The politics of national security began with the Patriot Act, the creation of Homeland Security, and immigration and customs enforcement. These are a complete change from what had previously been a relatively open and porous border. Today everything is monitored and militarized.
The social conditions also vary. In 1986 there wasn’t a social movement of relevant size to reclaim the regularization. Twenty years later in 2006, more than 3 million people went to the streets to show their interest and demand a reasonable path to become U.S. citizens.
Among the slogans that they shouted in the streets were “yes we can” and “we are here, and here we will stay.” This marked the first time that many took to the streets to protest the anti-immigrant policy that Congress had proposed in reform HR 4437. In addition to large marches, there were many timely protests that were very successful.
Moreover, the migration pattern has changed radically in comparison to 1986, when migrants could relatively easily — and securely — come and go as they pleased. Today, migrants must really make an effort. The increased cost and risk to cross the border prevent them from circling between the two countries as they had done in the previous century. The elongation of the migrant’s stay solidified the integration of the migrant in U.S. media, although the conditions of insecurity and vulnerability continued due to their illegal status.
Working conditions have radically transformed in the past 25 years. This has paralleled the precarious position of the migrant worker, who most often is a day laborer looking for temporary work, while another sector has ventured into higher paying labor markets such as construction, services, small business and small trade.
Finally, in this new context of increased polarization, integration and maturity of the Mexican migrant community, a migratory reform that opens the path to regularization and citizenship of several million people will be an incredible motor to empower them and increase their potential as a decisive force in American society of the 21st century.
The Mexican reality has changed, particularly in the demographic composition. In the '80s the migratory process still impacted numerous families who encouraged the emigration of some of its members. Today families in general are smaller, and there is less pressure to export members.
When the growth of the population is controlled and is given a chance to expand economically, conditions will be generated that will reduce the migrant flow. In addition to economic growth, it will generate employment, increase salaries and reduce inequality. This path of development will make emigration no longer necessary.
Then the migratory reforms of other countries will have an impact on us, and we will have to think about a better way to handle the migrant flows that arrive in our own country of Mexico.
Previous article![]( "One Hand Open, One on the Trigger as US Invites China to RIMPAC")